Disposed

Vimlesh Kumar Dev Pandey and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Sonbhadra and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2019WRIB/2640/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition rejecting the preliminary objection regarding the interlocutory nature of a remand order but directed the consolidation officer to decide the matter expeditiously within six months while maintaining the status quo.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent No.2 to decide the matter expeditiously within six months and maintaining status quo pending such decision.

Vimlesh Kumar Dev Pandey and Another Vs Deputy Director… — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2640 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Vimlesh Kumar Dev Pandey And Another Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation Sonbhadra And 2 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Veerendra Kumar Shukla,Rajnish Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Ashutosh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2.

¶7

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 10.07.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Sonbhadra/respondent No.1.

¶8

Sri Ashutosh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel made a preliminary objection that in view of the law laid down in the case of Ram Chandra Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Lucknow reported in 2017 (134) RD 25 , in which it has already been held by this Court that remand order is an interlocutory order which does not terminate the proceedings. It is open to the aggrieved parties to challenge the order of remand after final judgement made on remand. In the case of Dularey and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others reported in 2005 (99) RD 174 , it has been held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that if the appellate authority has remanded the matter to the consolidation officer for fresh consideration, there was absolutely no justification either on the fact or law for the revisional court to interfere in the order of the appellate authority. It appears from the record that no legal injuries was caused to the petitioner by the order dated 10.7.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Sonbhadra/respondent No.1.

¶9

Per Contra, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his claim relied upon a judgement of this Court in the case of Prem Pal and another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr and others, 2005 (99) RD 439 . Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage made the prayer that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2/Consolidation Officer, Sonbhadra to decide the matter expeditiously.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the prayer to decide the matter expeditiously.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties present, this petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage.

¶12

Without entering into merits of the case and without interfering in the order dated 10.07.2019 passed by respondent No.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation Sonbhadra, this petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to decide the matter expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶13

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶14

Till the time matter is decided by respondent No.2, parties are directed to maintain status quo.

¶15

Order Date :- 18.12.2019

¶16

saqlain

Vimlesh Kumar Dev Pandey and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Sonbhadra and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimlesh Kumar Dev Pandey and Another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Sonbhadra and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Indrawati Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akhilesh Baranwal and 06 Others Vs State of U.P. and 04 Others

Budhiram Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Gaon Sabha Mohanpur through Pradhan Vs D.D.C. Judicial Varanasi and Others

Gopal Krishna Pandey Vs Settlement Officer of Consolidation Mau

Kailash Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 9 Others